We just assassinated another terrorist, just like Obama "personally" killed Osama bin Laden.

At least at first, President Trump is having the military take credit, not himself.

(01-03-2020 05:02 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-03-2020 04:36 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(01-03-2020 04:23 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  Wasn't this board literally just celebrating the abandonment of our Kurdish allies to slaughter because it meant the US was withdrawing from the region?

Now your orange boy is embedding the US in another war in the Middle East, and you're celebrating that too?

Can someone please explain this reasoning? Because the only common link I can find is that Republicans don't actually care for strategy or consistency, they just fall in line and support whatever the person in power decides in the moment.

You people are practically frothing at the mouth for a chance to send someone else's children to fight in a war no one wants, to kill brown people that didn't want us there anyway. For what?

Ja, you've got it all figured out...


I challenge you to find a person on board that was looking for war...............................oh Ja, what war is he conceiving at this point.....

are you pining for cuck-dumb or ze pacifist in general....

do you really believe your end strategy as valid.....

ewe don't understand how DJT plays this one, does ya?

bull and horns......bull and horns....

he's going to splatter the masses w/o global concern if muh sandbags challenge.....

killing is a biatch.....the repercussions are much more on the other side....

stick with your stick-horsey-puckey.....and thank those with balls...

He's making the price of a war very high for Iran. They have been ratcheting up activity and crossed a line. Very different reaction than Red line Neville Obama.

thank you! XACLY!

(01-03-2020 04:23 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  Wasn't this board literally just celebrating the abandonment of our Kurdish allies to slaughter because it meant the US was withdrawing from the region?

Now your orange boy is embedding the US in another war in the Middle East, and you're celebrating that too?

Can someone please explain this reasoning? Because the only common link I can find is that Republicans don't actually care for strategy or consistency, they just fall in line and support whatever the person in power decides in the moment.

You people are practically frothing at the mouth for a chance to send someone else's children to fight in a war no one wants, to kill brown people that didn't want us there anyway. For what?

Oh no, save the brown people who are all for killing Americans of any color! Go to your safe space, or even better go to Iran and defend your brown brethren if you feel that strongly. Oh, and we never supported anything Obama did with the exception of killin Bin Laden so...

#triggered

(01-03-2020 04:55 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(01-03-2020 04:38 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(01-03-2020 04:23 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  Wasn't this board literally just celebrating the abandonment of our Kurdish allies to slaughter because it meant the US was withdrawing from the region?

Now your orange boy is embedding the US in another war in the Middle East, and you're celebrating that too?

Can someone please explain this reasoning? Because the only common link I can find is that Republicans don't actually care for strategy or consistency, they just fall in line and support whatever the person in power decides in the moment.

You people are practically frothing at the mouth for a chance to send someone else's children to fight in a war no one wants, to kill brown people that didn't want us there anyway. For what?

What war?

It's pretty simple. We don't want to be in the ME at all; however, we are there and if attacked we respond, as it should be. It really is that simple.

What War? You don't think assassinating a world leader isn't an act of war? Sending 3500 troops isn't mobilizing for war? Russia and China aligned with Iran and sharing interests eager to take advantage of an increasingly weak and ally-less US isn't mobilizing for war?


But that ignores my original point. I'm asking how do Republicans swallow the hypocrisy of abandoning the region in the name of "withdrawal" only to further entrench the US in that very region (regardless of what you want to call it) a month later? It makes absolutely zero sense.

You think this ******* was a world leader? Says a lot.

(01-03-2020 04:55 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(01-03-2020 04:38 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(01-03-2020 04:23 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  Wasn't this board literally just celebrating the abandonment of our Kurdish allies to slaughter because it meant the US was withdrawing from the region?

Now your orange boy is embedding the US in another war in the Middle East, and you're celebrating that too?

Can someone please explain this reasoning? Because the only common link I can find is that Republicans don't actually care for strategy or consistency, they just fall in line and support whatever the person in power decides in the moment.

You people are practically frothing at the mouth for a chance to send someone else's children to fight in a war no one wants, to kill brown people that didn't want us there anyway. For what?

What war?

It's pretty simple. We don't want to be in the ME at all; however, we are there and if attacked we respond, as it should be. It really is that simple.

What War? You don't think assassinating a world leader isn't an act of war? Sending 3500 troops isn't mobilizing for war? Russia and China aligned with Iran and sharing interests eager to take advantage of an increasingly weak and ally-less US isn't mobilizing for war?


But that ignores my original point. I'm asking how do Republicans swallow the hypocrisy of abandoning the region in the name of "withdrawal" only to further entrench the US in that very region (regardless of what you want to call it) a month later? It makes absolutely zero sense.

We explained it to you.

We assassinated a terrorist. We didn't destabilize a nation like Obama did when he bombed a non-terrorist regime in Libya. It is more akin to President Reagan bombing Qaddaffi's house and killing members of his family, turning Qaddaffi into a former terrorist.

(01-03-2020 04:55 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(01-03-2020 04:38 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(01-03-2020 04:23 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  Wasn't this board literally just celebrating the abandonment of our Kurdish allies to slaughter because it meant the US was withdrawing from the region?

Now your orange boy is embedding the US in another war in the Middle East, and you're celebrating that too?

Can someone please explain this reasoning? Because the only common link I can find is that Republicans don't actually care for strategy or consistency, they just fall in line and support whatever the person in power decides in the moment.

You people are practically frothing at the mouth for a chance to send someone else's children to fight in a war no one wants, to kill brown people that didn't want us there anyway. For what?

What war?

It's pretty simple. We don't want to be in the ME at all; however, we are there and if attacked we respond, as it should be. It really is that simple.

What War? You don't think assassinating a world leader isn't an act of war? Sending 3500 troops isn't mobilizing for war? Russia and China aligned with Iran and sharing interests eager to take advantage of an increasingly weak and ally-less US isn't mobilizing for war?


But that ignores my original point. I'm asking how do Republicans swallow the hypocrisy of abandoning the region in the name of "withdrawal" only to further entrench the US in that very region (regardless of what you want to call it) a month later? It makes absolutely zero sense.

and he's what world leader???? oh yeah, ye ol' fk'n fagoo terrosim to the brinks of Allah....

how does, "FK U!" sound....

(01-03-2020 04:55 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(01-03-2020 04:38 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(01-03-2020 04:23 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  Wasn't this board literally just celebrating the abandonment of our Kurdish allies to slaughter because it meant the US was withdrawing from the region?

Now your orange boy is embedding the US in another war in the Middle East, and you're celebrating that too?

Can someone please explain this reasoning? Because the only common link I can find is that Republicans don't actually care for strategy or consistency, they just fall in line and support whatever the person in power decides in the moment.

You people are practically frothing at the mouth for a chance to send someone else's children to fight in a war no one wants, to kill brown people that didn't want us there anyway. For what?

What war?

It's pretty simple. We don't want to be in the ME at all; however, we are there and if attacked we respond, as it should be. It really is that simple.

What War? You don't think assassinating a world leader isn't an act of war? Sending 3500 troops isn't mobilizing for war? Russia and China aligned with Iran and sharing interests eager to take advantage of an increasingly weak and ally-less US isn't mobilizing for war?


But that ignores my original point. I'm asking how do Republicans swallow the hypocrisy of abandoning the region in the name of "withdrawal" only to further entrench the US in that very region (regardless of what you want to call it) a month later? It makes absolutely zero sense.

You just revealed the extent of your knowledge of global issues as all wrong. China and Russia will NOT align with Iran against the U.S., if you really think so you are a fool. Apparently you really think so, you and DavidSt should sit down over some soy milk and stroke each others stupidity.

(01-03-2020 03:38 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  Two days apart. You can't have it both ways...

What a dipstick.

Does this clod not know the twitter is forever?

(01-03-2020 05:08 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(01-03-2020 04:55 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(01-03-2020 04:38 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(01-03-2020 04:23 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  Wasn't this board literally just celebrating the abandonment of our Kurdish allies to slaughter because it meant the US was withdrawing from the region?

Now your orange boy is embedding the US in another war in the Middle East, and you're celebrating that too?

Can someone please explain this reasoning? Because the only common link I can find is that Republicans don't actually care for strategy or consistency, they just fall in line and support whatever the person in power decides in the moment.

You people are practically frothing at the mouth for a chance to send someone else's children to fight in a war no one wants, to kill brown people that didn't want us there anyway. For what?

What war?

It's pretty simple. We don't want to be in the ME at all; however, we are there and if attacked we respond, as it should be. It really is that simple.

What War? You don't think assassinating a world leader isn't an act of war? Sending 3500 troops isn't mobilizing for war? Russia and China aligned with Iran and sharing interests eager to take advantage of an increasingly weak and ally-less US isn't mobilizing for war?


But that ignores my original point. I'm asking how do Republicans swallow the hypocrisy of abandoning the region in the name of "withdrawal" only to further entrench the US in that very region (regardless of what you want to call it) a month later? It makes absolutely zero sense.

You just revealed the extent of your knowledge of global issues as all wrong. China and Russia will NOT align with Iran against the U.S., if you really think so you are a fool. Apparently you really think so, you and DavidSt should sit down over some soy milk and stroke each others stupidity.

don't be bashing DsT.....his eerie dea(f)th thread says it all....

disclaimer: I did have to chime in with a bootlegger on that thread....he'd whiff that one too...if a vote was taken for best village idiot, I'm certain he and I would run 'neck and neck'....

that ol' boy is a hoot and a half....

All the insults and ignorance and whataboutisms, as per the usual from this black hole of intellectual activity.

But here are the facts:

-Qassem Soleimani was not a terrorist, he was the General of Iran's elite Quds Force, which had a hand in fighting the Islamic State militant group. He was practically second in command, hence "a world leader". Calling him a terrorist is incorrect and reeks of Right Wing "Patriotic" propaganda.

-Iranian, Russian, and Chinese relations are well documented. They absolutely would support Iran, just as they have in the past. (Source) So before any of you all get huffy about my apparent lack of knowledge why don't you go sit your retired butts on that sofa and turn on the History channel that has replayed all of this for the past decade, as starters, then do your own research.

-All of this, and none of you can still come up with a rational excuse as to the 1 month complete 180 in policy. Are we leaving? Are we going? How many more troops are going to be sent there? For what purpose?

Oh that's right. None of you have an answer. You're too busy lathering your warmongering to actually use your brain and figure out exactly what Trump is doing. I'll quote the man himself. From 2011.

He was the head of a terrorist organization

He was a terrorist. He’s called the shots that have killed a lot of Americans. He’s been on the radar for a long time.

When did you become such a snarky *******, btw.?

(01-03-2020 05:39 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  When did you become such a snarky *******, btw.?

this is what I was wondering just now too. All his posts lately have taken a sharp condescending tone.

(01-03-2020 05:28 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  All the insults and ignorance and whataboutisms, as per the usual from this black hole of intellectual activity.

But here are the facts:

-Qassem Soleimani was not a terrorist, he was the General of Iran's elite Quds Force, which had a hand in fighting the Islamic State militant group. He was practically second in command, hence "a world leader". Calling him a terrorist is incorrect and reeks of Right Wing "Patriotic" propaganda.

-Iranian, Russian, and Chinese relations are well documented. They absolutely would support Iran, just as they have in the past. (Source) So before any of you all get huffy about my apparent lack of knowledge why don't you go sit your retired butts on that sofa and turn on the History channel that has replayed all of this for the past decade, as starters, then do your own research.

-All of this, and none of you can still come up with a rational excuse as to the 1 month complete 180 in policy. Are we leaving? Are we going? How many more troops are going to be sent there? For what purpose?

Oh that's right. None of you have an answer. You're too busy lathering your warmongering to actually use your brain and figure out exactly what Trump is doing. I'll quote the man himself. From 2011.

He ran a global terrorist organization. We have never left Germany or S. Korea blah blah blah Orange Man Bad.

(01-03-2020 05:38 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  He was the head of a terrorist organization

He was a terrorist. He’s called the shots that have killed a lot of Americans. He’s been on the radar for a long time.

what's ironic is too many can't differentiate between such in scope....

there's a reason his sig pic is idiosyncratic in humor...he thinks it's all a joke rubbin' within the shrubberies...

his version of 'heil' will attempt to pound, but can only fail in any scenario....no differently than the brits or the brie found frumunda cheese as 'tasty'...

disclaimer: their option is still a problem moving into '24....

NEVER LET THE GUARD DOWN

(01-03-2020 05:28 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  All the insults and ignorance and whataboutisms, as per the usual from this black hole of intellectual activity.

But here are the facts:

-Qassem Soleimani was not a terrorist, he was the General of Iran's elite Quds Force, which had a hand in fighting the Islamic State militant group. He was practically second in command, hence "a world leader". Calling him a terrorist is incorrect and reeks of Right Wing "Patriotic" propaganda.

He was the leader of a terrorist organization. That makes him a terrorist. Just because you refer to him as "dear leader" doesnt make him any less of a terrorist.

Quote:-Iranian, Russian, and Chinese relations are well documented. They absolutely would support Iran, just as they have in the past.

Russia would abandon Iran the moment cruise missiles start flying.

China would abandon Iran the moment their market crashes, which would be days after they side with Iran.

Checkmate, motherf*cker.

Quote:-All of this, and none of you can still come up with a rational excuse as to the 1 month complete 180 in policy. Are we leaving? Are we going? How many more troops are going to be sent there? For what purpose?

Americas policy, when attacked, should always include incinerating the enemy into dirt. Even better when its done while enjoying two scoops and causes you butthurt.

(01-03-2020 05:41 PM)TigersOhMy Wrote:  

(01-03-2020 05:39 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  When did you become such a snarky *******, btw.?

this is what I was wondering just now too. All his posts lately have taken a sharp condescending tone.

maybe, just maybe, he fully understands the battle...or was it "Rath" that became a dead giveaway in the onset....

he's simply been a leopard waiting to pounce....

#nowIsTheTime

#henceDJT

(01-03-2020 05:28 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  All the insults and ignorance and whataboutisms, as per the usual from this black hole of intellectual activity.
But here are the facts:
-Qassem Soleimani was not a terrorist, he was the General of Iran's elite Quds Force, which had a hand in fighting the Islamic State militant group. He was practically second in command, hence "a world leader". Calling him a terrorist is incorrect and reeks of Right Wing "Patriotic" propaganda.

The SOB was a terrorist and needed to be killed. Just like everyone else at the top of that rogue regime. Your attempt to defend him reveals more about you than about anyone else.

Quote:-Iranian, Russian, and Chinese relations are well documented. They absolutely would support Iran, just as they have in the past. (Source) So before any of you all get huffy about my apparent lack of knowledge why don't you go sit your retired butts on that sofa and turn on the History channel that has replayed all of this for the past decade, as starters, then do your own research.

So Trump is Putin's lapdog, but now he is going to get us into a war with Russia? Which is it? You can't have both. As far as I'm concerned, you don't have either.

Quote:-All of this, and none of you can still come up with a rational excuse as to the 1 month complete 180 in policy. Are we leaving? Are we going? How many more troops are going to be sent there? For what purpose?
Oh that's right. None of you have an answer. You're too busy lathering your warmongering to actually use your brain and figure out exactly what Trump is doing. I'll quote the man himself. From 2011.

I don't know what Trump will do, but I'll tell you what I would do. Don't get into a "no win" war to occupy territory, build schools and hospitals, and "win their hearts and minds." They're not going to like us, no matter what, so make them fear and respect us instead. Go in full-bore, without absurd ROEs, kill everybody that needs killing, from the top down, until they get tired of dying, break everything that needs breaking, tell whoever is left that we will be back to kill them if they screw up, GTFO, and stay TFO unless the screw up.

The world will be scared, because they've never seen anything like that, at least not out of us. But they'll get over it.

(01-03-2020 05:28 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  All the insults and ignorance and whataboutisms, as per the usual from this black hole of intellectual activity.

But here are the facts:

-Qassem Soleimani was not a terrorist, he was the General of Iran's elite Quds Force, which had a hand in fighting the Islamic State militant group. He was practically second in command, hence "a world leader". Calling him a terrorist is incorrect and reeks of Right Wing "Patriotic" propaganda.

-Iranian, Russian, and Chinese relations are well documented. They absolutely would support Iran, just as they have in the past. (Source) So before any of you all get huffy about my apparent lack of knowledge why don't you go sit your retired butts on that sofa and turn on the History channel that has replayed all of this for the past decade, as starters, then do your own research.

-All of this, and none of you can still come up with a rational excuse as to the 1 month complete 180 in policy. Are we leaving? Are we going? How many more troops are going to be sent there? For what purpose?

Oh that's right. None of you have an answer. You're too busy lathering your warmongering to actually use your brain and figure out exactly what Trump is doing. I'll quote the man himself. From 2011.

Ja, I do....

why?

it's a simple support mechanism to administer a well deserved flogging in the 21st century version after decades of waste from the USD....

which do you prefer.....pandering to nothingness or remaining solvent in growth....

#pick$$$orTHEEother biatch....

(01-03-2020 05:53 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-03-2020 05:28 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  All the insults and ignorance and whataboutisms, as per the usual from this black hole of intellectual activity.
But here are the facts:
-Qassem Soleimani was not a terrorist, he was the General of Iran's elite Quds Force, which had a hand in fighting the Islamic State militant group. He was practically second in command, hence "a world leader". Calling him a terrorist is incorrect and reeks of Right Wing "Patriotic" propaganda.

The SOB was a terrorist and needed to be killed. Just like everyone else at the top of that rogue regime. Your attempt to defend him reveals more about you than about anyone else.

Quote:-Iranian, Russian, and Chinese relations are well documented. They absolutely would support Iran, just as they have in the past. (Source) So before any of you all get huffy about my apparent lack of knowledge why don't you go sit your retired butts on that sofa and turn on the History channel that has replayed all of this for the past decade, as starters, then do your own research.

So Trump is Putin's lapdog, but now he is going to get us into a war with Russia? Which is it? You can't have both. As far as I'm concerned, you don't have either.

Quote:-All of this, and none of you can still come up with a rational excuse as to the 1 month complete 180 in policy. Are we leaving? Are we going? How many more troops are going to be sent there? For what purpose?
Oh that's right. None of you have an answer. You're too busy lathering your warmongering to actually use your brain and figure out exactly what Trump is doing. I'll quote the man himself. From 2011.

I don't know what Trump will do, but I'll tell you what I would do. Don't get into a "no win" war to occupy territory, build schools and hospitals, and "win their hearts and minds." They're not going to like us, no matter what, so make them fear and respect us instead. Go in full-bore, without absurd ROEs, kill everybody that needs killing, from the top down, until they get tired of dying, break everything that needs breaking, tell whoever is left that we will be back to kill them if they screw up, GTFO, and stay TFO unless the screw up.

The world will be scared, because they've never seen anything like that, at least not out of us. But they'll get over it.

that's XACLY! wtf would happen.....